Thursday, December 10, 2009

"Professionally produced for The Heartland Institute, this 20-minute video features interviews with leading climate scientists who spoke at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC."

Extracts from this page :- www.heartland.org/books/LegislatorsGuide.htmlThe Heartland Institute, has been studying and commenting on climate change since 1995, making contact with hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts whose views on climate change certainly dispute the notion that 'global warming is a crisis.'

These individuals are not on the 'fringe' of the scientific community. Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian journalist and environmentalist, wrote, “What I found when I started digging first surprised and then shocked me. I found dozens of truly eminent and world-renowned scientists who reject the conventional 'wisdom' on global warming. I also found that, in case after case, the scientists putting forward the contrary argument were far more accomplished than those who originated the U.N.’s doomsayer view."

“In short,” wrote Solomon, “the scientists I found and profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow narrow and simplistic views of global warming to survive.”

The graph compares the steadily rising CO2 levels with the global temperature average.There hasn't been any significant warming since 1998.The models used by the United Nations panel on climate change did not 'project' the lack of warming, and cannot account for the anomaly.(Apparently the UN panel doesn't make 'predictions' - it makes 'projections'.)

LS -- For Professor Bob Carter - David - morning.D -- Morning.LS -- Your question.D -- I’d like to ask Professor Bob Carter, why is it that just a quick scan of the Internet shows that all the people that basically work at the coalface, who work in the area of climate research, ie. all the weather forecasting bureau of the UK, America, Australia, India, I think Scandinavia ones - all attribute the recent warming to man.BC -- Well the answer is your word: “quick-scan” of the Internet. You obviously haven’t looked carefully enough --D -- I’ve looked very carefully actually.BC -- Well science matters are not determined by majority vote, that’s the second point.D -- These are people working at the coalface.BC -- I’m working at the coalface, and so are thousands of other scientists, and --D -- Have you ever had a paper published, explaining the warming in terms of other effects apart from CO2?BC -- Indeed, and that you can ask that question shows that your scan of the Internet was very superficial indeed. There are thousands of qualified scientists out there - they have signed public statements to the effect that not that climate change is not a problem. Climate change is a problem, but human-caused climate change from carbon dioxide emissions - if you want to take a head count - there are between thirty and forty thousand qualified scientists that have said that they do not believe that’s a problem. And the IPCC claims it has two thousand scientists - it actually has probably three or four hundred - you can’t actually get hold of the list. And that’s something else that should ring a bell of big alarm in the public’s mind.D -- These are policy statements by organizations that represent people working at the coalface.BC -- Well you’re putting your finger right on the button. They’re policy statements indeed - that’s politics, that’s not science, and that’s the problem with the IPCC. It is a political body. It is giving the government political advice, despite the fact that it is advised by scientists.D -- Well can you explain why other journals, eg. New Scientist, The American Advancement For Science, all again believe the recent warming is due to man.BC -- Well if they believe it, they are being non-scientific.D -- Why?BC -- Because science is not about belief, science is about testing hypotheses. The hypothesis of the day is that dangerous global warming is caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. That’s what the press reporter that asks me - sloppily - do I believe in global warming actually means. He or she means - do I believe that dangerous global warming will be caused by human carbon dioxide emissions? That’s a simple hypothesis. It has been tested repeatably - and it fails. Let me give you one test. Since 1998 - the last 10 years - global average temperature has declined.D -- But there’s still a rising trend.BC -- Well of course if you plot it as a ten to fifteen year moving average.D -- Quite surely it is taken over a longer period, not a short period. Not a year or six months.BC -- I’ll come back and address that, but just let me finish my point please, which is for the last ten years global average temperatures declined. Over those same ten years carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by five percent. The hypothesis is, more carbon dioxide - not just warming, but dangerous global warming. The fact is more carbon dioxide - cooling, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about three years, five years, or a hundred years, that’s a test of that hypothesis, and the hypothesis fails.D -- Those ten years may have been cooler that 1998, but it’s still amongst the most fifteen warmest years since 1850.BC -- Yes for the same reason that the days after mid-summer day are the warmest in the annual cycle. That’s a complete piece of scientific trivia which is run endlessly by the media and by the bodies that have an alarmist intention in this area.D -- And by the climate research unit in East Anglia, who I believe you are quite happy to quote.BC -- Well they publish statistics which are used by the United Nations, and used by me. Indeed I use their statistics. I wouldn’t dream of using their opinions.D -- That’s quite interesting. So what do you put the warming down to - sun flare activity, sunspot activity?BC -- There’s about a hundred sub-disciplines of scientific research that are relevant to global warming. I am a personal expert in one or two of them. There is no such thing on this planet as a scientist that understands climate change. Anyone that sits in the table opposite you and says, “I’m a scientist, I understand climate change, and the warming’s due to x, y, or z”, is an idiot, and you stop listening to them straight away. It is an extremely complex natural system, and perhaps the most important thing about it is that it is non-linear or chaotic. What that means is you cannot predict it. The IPCC themselves have a very good statement to that effect. That means that our government has plans to introduce taxes which are based on computer models that are trying to predict a system that all science in the world know is un-predictable. You as a citizen should be worried about that.

Translate blog page

(click on down arrow)

*** Important Plagiarism Information ***

People are welcome to use these blog posts for research purposes. However, I certainly don't write them to make things easier for students (and others) who are often tempted to 'copy and paste' original writing, and present it as their own writing. In most cases it needs to be re-written in their words, and I would expect an entry in the references of the document - as is normal practice. If they include quotes (in quotation marks) please ensure that there is a reference to the original author.Thank you,.. Peter (aka Que)

Warning! - don't buy these...

Global Temperatures Since 1979 :-

Please note the authors of the graph say the trend curve should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.
Graph by Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Graph picture :- http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_2012.png
Blog page :- http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/

"Created by Cuffy and Clow in 1997, and based on Greenland ice core records, this chart shows global temperatures for the past 15,000 years."
"Temperatures have been warmer than today for almost all of the past 10,000 years."
“ 'Natural global warming much more intense than modern warming has occurred many times in the geologic past without CO2 change,' said Easterbrook."